Carlson, Wendy v. Division of Occupational Licensure (SPR 20260288)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 9, 2026 SPR26/0288 Jean McCarthy Record Access Officer Division of Occupational Licensure 1000 Washington Street, Suite 710 Boston, MA 02118 Dear Ms. McCarthy: I have received the petition of Wendy Carlson appealing the response of the Division of Occupational Licensure (Division) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 11, 2020, Ms. Carlson requested, “anything with [an identified individual’s signature]. On December 4, 2025, Ms. Carlson requested, “…a cover letter, certification, or attestation from the agency that the records are a true copy.” The Division responded on September 15, 2020 and December 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Division’s December 4th response, Ms. Carlson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0288, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specifiTown requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Jean McCarthy SPR26/0288 Page 2 February 9, 2026 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Division’s Responses On September 15, 2020, the Division provided responsive records in redacted form, citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). On December 4, 2025, the Division responded, “[u]nfortunately, public records does not certify records requests.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Carlson contends: I am in need of a true attested copy from the keeper of the records of these records…. The public records division sent me the copies however, [an identified individual], Public Records Access Officer, see below email, told me that The Office of Public Records could not provide certified or true attested copies of the records they provided to me. Bristol Superior Court, New Bedford, [an identified judge] requires the records to be true attested copies or they will not be allowed into evidence. The keeper of the records by way of a stamp, seal attest that the records are true. … There is a bench trial on 3/6/2026. Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that pending litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Ms. Carlson’s appeal, is active and ongoing in Bristol County Superior Court. See Wendy Carlson v. Patriot Living, LLC et al, (Bristol County Docket No. 2073CV00263) (April 16, 2020).

Jean McCarthy SPR26/0288 Page 3 February 9, 2026 In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Wendy Carlson